Is it normal for interim bishops to receive invitations? Rowan Williams has sole power to invite, but it appears some bureaucrat is writing the email. I would not be surprised however. He seems to be doing the American’s bidding, e.g., the whole indaba format. And actually Gene Robinson’s non-invitation will allow VGR to sell more books and get more camera mugging time. The American delegation probably went over and asked, “Please reconsider! It is sooo unfair. (wink, wink, say no more.)”
People talk not giving up on a Canterbury communion but if Canterbury bows to 815’s every whim, it is really an 815 centered communion.
If anyone, perhaps hiding under a rock somewhere, has been in doubt as to Canterbury’s intentions and sympathies, this should bring final clarity. The situation in San Joaquin is uncanonical to say the least, and yet here is the Lambeth invitation, while some CANA and AMiA bishops are ignored.
Katherine: [i]some[/i] AMiA and CANA bishops? Aren’t they all excluded? I don’t much care if the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin’s bishop is going, but what of the Southern Cone’s Diocese of San Joaquin?
So the obvious question is has Bishop Schofield’s invitation been revoked? Or was he not planning to be there anyway?
I don’t think we’ll know-my guess is that it will be revoked privately and then +Schofield will say he was not planning on attending – that way everyone ‘saves face.’ However, with the state of the AC now, I wouldn’t be surprised if it rapidly became public info.
The situation in San Joaquin is uncanonical to say the least, and yet here is the Lambeth invitation,The situation in San Joaquin is uncanonical to say the least, and yet here is the Lambeth invitation,…
I’m not sure this should be read as a definitive statement on the issues. The facts are that +Schofield was deposed. If it is a violation of canons, then that decision is subject to being reversed. Canterbury is simply recognizing +Lamb’s status as it exists today.
Well, the ABC is hardly expected to be conversant with American canons, given that Bonnie Anderson states he cannot “get” the American baptismal covenant bit. So – what’s a few broken canons and diocesan invasions and false depositions and abdication of episcopal function betwixt money providers and the ABC, anyway? There’s only the “Anglican Communion” to think of in an off-hand sort of way, if at all. The world revolves around the liberal elite of 815 and the American zeitgest, doesn’t it?
Sounds like this Lambeth will be more of the same futile ‘Listening’ and ‘Dialogue’ with the usual goals of compromise and convincing the orthodox of the glories and legitimacy of homosexual practice and identity and experience and of holding plural truths in tension. McLaren and Toscano will reiterate the revisionist ‘gospel.’
I cannot fail to notice the ‘planners’ have not invited Fr. Mario Bergner or Peter Ould to speak…or Fr. David Kyle Foster to balance the message of Toscano. Or a man of God who preaches the true Gospel of the Church of the Ages to balance McLaren’s self-taught self-generated ‘gospel’.
In a sense, the poor are being used by the agendites to mask and distract attention from the real issue at the bottom of the Anglican crisis – the opposition to and denial of the Lordship of Jesus Christ…denial of His true Gospel and of the necessity of the Cross and Blood, and denial of sin and of His power over sin.
Jerry Lamb will fit in very nicely with the programme.
I agree with Akinola, there is no evidence that this Lambeth is an honest or edifying Christian endeavor.
I wonder if +Schofield’s invitation will be rescinded with the possible impact that will have on the Southern Cone attendance. Lambeth already has representatives of less than half of the world’s Anglicans. Seems to me big efforts have been made to encourage greater attendance. But what do I know?
Bad logic Sarah. If John murders Tom is Tom dead? Sure, John can’t legally murder Tom. It is absolutely forbidden and a violation of the Law. So by your logic, no, Tom is not dead.
Friends,
I think the reality which we must face is that this is perhaps it for any orthodox Anglicans, in terms of Lambeth. If puppet bishops are to be included and rightful bishops excluded, how can any good come of that? I just spoke with a bishop in England a few minutes ago and he feels that it is very much a done deal that the liberals, or whatever you want to call them, have the upper hand and its very much their show. Don’t get me wrong, I’d like to see something good come out of Lambeth, but I stopped holding my breath a long time ago. I’m a non-stipended minister with CANA and I’ll be watching what happens at GAFCON and seeing what becomes of the Common Cause Partnership in the next few months. So much valuable time has already been lost and none of us are getting any younger. I must have heard from half a dozen evangelicals who are just about ready to throw-in-the-towel in terms of Anglicanism because they cannot see a future for traditional, Prayer Book Anglicans. I can only advise them to exercise a bit more patience and see what this Summer brings; but how long O Lord, how long? I think there are perhaps many Anglicans who may resort to becoming Anglican Survivalists if something isn’t done soon. People may end-up hunkering-down and reading prayers in their Dining Rooms with their families, which they should be doing anyway, but they may lose confidence that theywill ever have an Anglican Church they can trust to attend where they are. Before this is all over I think Satan is going to have to expand that Lake of Fire.
Brian from T19,
You of course may think as you like it is your right to do so. The problem is when you speak of things you think your words come out completely wrong!
In the eyes of those on the liberal left who think that your Dictator Bishop KJS, has all the power to do as she pleases is the way of the Anglican Communion World and of TEC way…. you have set up a falsehood that most all Anglicans in the WWAC know better. But, living an illusion is very dangerous and damaging to ones health.
Fact: Bishop John-David is a bishop in good standig in the Province of the Southern Cone. He resigned his position in TEC’s House of Bishops of which his resignation was not, and may I reapeat, was not, accepted by them. Then they set out to depose him but failed, let me say it again, FAILED, to get the required votes to make it legal by the rules of the Canons and Constitutions of TEC. But, heck, to the liberal lefts that’s just a formality that is really not that big of a deal so in their minds and yours of the illusion that you all seem to be living in just have a real hard time recognizing the Truth of the matter and not just in the C’s & C’s of TEC but in the Bible as well seems to be a challenge. I for one tire of the repeated falsehoods that you ‘all continue to spout. As if you keep spouting it it will become reality. Just like ordaining a gay man to the episcopate! If we just do it and say it is a good and right thing to to do everyone will just go along and all will be well……NOT!!!!!!!
Brian, let’s get one thing straight: Our bishop, +John-David Schofield, IS DEFINITELY GOING TO LAMBETH!
If he were to be “disinvited,” we would regard that as a deliberate slap in the face directed at us and our archbishop, ++Gregory Venables……and I doubt very much that even Rowan Cantuar would be that stupid. As One Day Closer has said…..and I agree with her…..you are way off base. Therefore, may I suggest that you get in touch with reality?
Can someone clarify for me who is eligible to attend Lambeth? Is it just the currently presiding bishops or is anyone who has not been deposed AND is a bishop – retired or otherwise eligible to be invited? If the later is the case, it would seem to me that perhaps Lamb was invited on the basis of his having been bishop of north california in the past and retains the title of bishop? Is he invited as a bishop or as the bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin? I recognize that he may have received it at the SJ Diocesan office but that in and of itself is not an acknowledgement of his being the bishop of SJ. Clarification would be appreciated.
1. One would think that Lamb would put the best face foward to this invitation. Yet what Lamb has told us is that this was an email from the “manager” of the Lambeth Conference telling him “”we are expecting you at the Lambeth Conference”. That doesn’t sound to me like the official invitation. It sounds to me like some sort of semi-official courtesy invitation issued at arms-length from the ABC.
2. I don’t think that this email correspondence that Lamb is trumpeting necessarily means that Schofield has been disinvited. If you think of the ABC’s options, one of the safer paths would have been to maintain Schofield’s invitation but to offer a back-door invitation to Lamb.
3. Of course, if Schofield was to be disinvited, one would expect that it would also be done at arms-length from the ABC. I don’t think that Schofield would keep it “quiet” to “save face”. Rather, I think it would be widely advertised around the Communion as a rallying cry against the ABC. A disinvitation by the ABC, coupled with the canonical irregularities surrounding the situation with Schofield, coupled with TEC’s and the ACC’s aggressive pursuit of SSB’s, would surely move more wavering moderate-conservative primates towards Anis, if not GAFCON.
But we shall see. My sense is that Rowan Williams is losing control of the Anglican Communion, and the necessity of “official recognition” by him is losing its cache. As Gandalf said in LOTR “The board is set, the pieces are moving, we come to it at last, the great battle of our time.” I think that many of those committed to GAFCON have realized and accepted that for a time, they will be operating outside of the ABC’s sphere. They themselves will maintain their connection to the ABC, but they will be building new Anglican structures in North America which the ABC will not recognize yet. And these structures will only be recognized by the ABC once the financial power of TEC/power of the British secular government over Lambeth Palace has been finally overthrown.
RE: “Bad logic Sarah. If John murders Tom is Tom dead?”
Irrelevant parallel, Brian. A person is only deposed if certain legal criteria are met. They were not.
One may, of course, “declare” someone deposed, just as someone may “declare” someone dead. But one must be actually deposed or dead before such declaration is accurate.
+John-David is rarely quiet about anything. And anyone who thinks he is at all interested in “saving face” really doesn’t know the man.
As I stated in a previous post, it is increasingly clear to me that +Williams is in the PB’s pocket. If +John-David is disinvited, and +Lamb invited after that sham of a deposition, that is if this all turns out to be true, I will regard +Williams’ authority as finished. And I have been one of +Cantuar’s greatest supporters these last five years. I kept wanting to believe he would act sensibly. But it is hard to avoid the conclusion that he is coming off the fence, or being pushed (both by 815, but also by the pro-GAFCON boycotters) in TEC’s direction. It makes me sick to think of how much trust I have placed in him.
The way the canons were used to get Jerry Lamb into office was a bit conflated, to put it mildly. The decision, though, was that he is seen as holding office as bishop on a “provisional” basis. To make that quite clear, some in the diocese talked it up as the election/appointment of him being “the Provisional Bishop”. The Canons have no such title – but who’s counting canons these days. Anyway, he is definitely not seen as a visiting bishop, nor as an interim bishop. Neither of those would provide the standing for an invitation to Lambeth. The authority granted to a bishop of provisional status would seem to be seen as more authoritative and more permanent. Perhaps a further sign of such diocesan authority would be as Bp Lamb’s name being recorded for Corp Sole basis. What diocese with any brains would make an “interim” bishop able to hold such legal status?!
The fact that he’s so happy about this notice means that a) he had no notice prior, and b) he hopes this might be one of those signals of validity to be used in court.
This has little to do with Bp Schofield. This has a lot to do with how 815 considers Bp Lamb — but we knew that already.
The smack is the Lambeth conference manager not being willing to suffer us fools who can see clearly that the consequences of the deposition failure at the HOB (likely to be considered an in-house and unresolved dispute by Lambeth office) determine Bp Lamb’s designation as a bishop of provisional status to be null and void.
Quite simple, really. Legislative action accomplished. Action challenged. 815 says all is well. Lambeth says, “ok, +Jerry, here’s your note. (If challenge is upheld, though, +Jerry, we won’t be able to invite you back in 2018, ok?)”
And 815 is more than likely paying for the trip for Bp Lamb.
I wonder how many other bishops around TEC will appreciate THAT?!
At this point, it’s hard to avoid #20’s conclusions. And the shame of it is, Williams really could have managed this crisis down with decisive action at a few key points. For example, immediately post-Dromantine, he could have declared himself bound as much to the opinion of the current primates as he thinks he is to George Carey’s obscure decisions, and said GCC has to comply with Dromantine, or none of its bishops are coming to Lambeth; “shucks, guys, my hands are tied, here.” I maintain that would have swung the HOB firmly to a stance of shelving The Agenda indefinitely, and might even have swung General Convention. Sure, the damage to his relations with the GCC would have been considerable, but that could have been repaired over time. In contrast, by snoozing, Rowan is losing, and will now end up with far more, and more widespread, damage to the AC. That is, damage to the AC in its embodiment as most of us would like to see it: as a worldwide, coherent communion. Whether Canterbury cares much for this vision is an open question; clearly, the GCC itself doesn’t.
Slightly off topic, but I couldn’t help but notice the announcement that immediately follow’s the one by Jerry Lamb:
[blockquote]From Canon Mark Hall:
Note to congregations. Medical insurance through the Medical Trust will begin on 1 July 2008.
[/blockquote]
Ah, the “ties that [i] really [/i] bind” so many clergy to their denomination: the pension plan and, more important, group medical insurance coverage….
You are correct that +Schofield is a bishop in good standing in the Province of the Southern Cone. He is an Anglican Bishop. He is not, however, a bishop in the Anglican Communion
You are correct that his resignation was not accepted. If it had been he would retain his voice in the TEC HoB and violated the ++Southern Cone’s express command that he no longer have any association with TEC.
+Schofield’s deposition did not fail. Here is why. Only General Convention and, at that time, the HoB have the ability to determine the meaning of the Constitution and Canons. Regardless of their perceived violation, they followed an agreed upon procedure that has only had a very small minority of bishops object after the fact,/i> Which leads to my next point.
You are correct that ++Katherine has assumed dictatorial powers. The reason that she has succeeded in taking absolute power is that the members of the HoB have allowed her to take this power. They are the only ones who can stop it and they, so far, have chosen not to. So her interpretation of the Constitution and Canons of TEC in this matter becomes the de facto final word. It is unfortunate that good men and women choose to do nothing, but the overwhelming majority of them do.
Cennydd,
You seem to have first hand knowledge of +Schofield’s plans and his status with Canterbury. Since my comment was regarding a future event, it is up to time to tell.
P.S. I have left several message for reality, but it is not returning my calls 😉
It didn’t, tis true — since there is no such thing as “Schofield’s deposition” just as there is no such thing as “Sarah at T19’s corpse” [at the moment].
RE: “Only General Convention and, at that time, the HoB have the ability to determine the meaning of the Constitution and Canons.”
No — in fact, neither the GC nor the HOB “determine the meaning of the” C&C; the C&C;’s meaning exists, no matter what the HOB “determines” about its meaning. The HOB merely *enacts* the C&C;– or fails to, which in the case of the attempted deposition, they failed to.
The police attempt to enforce laws. They don’t “determine” the meaning of laws. They enforce them — or fail to enforce them. But when they fail to enforce them, they don’t therefore by their failure determine that the laws mean something entirely other than the law’s plain meaning.
w.w.: Yes, indeed, the ‘ties that bind’ are the pension fund and medical insurance which so many clergy families depend upon. Many clergy (esp those in the 55+ bracket) have others depending upon them, often very ill or with ‘pre-existing conditions’ which insurance companies would use to refuse coverage. So the clergy are forced to choose, just as millions of others in the US are forced to choose: keep one’s job or lose health insurance for one’s family and face bankruptcy from medical costs. That’s I’m not throwing rocks at the clergy who reluctantly stay with TEC; too often they are sweating out the days until retirement, and just keeping their heads down. One more example of how the way we in the US pay for healthcare desperately needs reform.
That’s all well and good for the philosophers, but it lacks pragmatism. Practical consequences and real effects determine truth and meaning. You can, perhaps correctly, claim that an action did not occur, but the effects and consequences amply demonstrate that it did in all but name. Perhaps the salve of being “technically correct” makes the situation better for those suffering the consequence-I don’t know. However, standing on principle is the express lane to martyrdom and not necessarily a catalyst for change.
Uh, pardon me, Brian, but the ONLY person who can say whether or not +Schofield is a bishop of the Anglican Communion is Rowan Cantuar…….and he HAS NOT SAID THAT HE ISN’T, the last I heard. As of today, June 2nd, +John-David has not informed any of us in the diocese as to his intention not to attend Lambeth. My vicar is a member of the Diocesan Council, and I am a delegate to convention and am pretty well informed on diocesan business. If +John-David weren’t going to Lambeth as of yesterday, I’d have heard about it, I’m sure.
Ah, but did +Schofield’s deposition fail?
Actually, a better test case would be, did +Cox’ deposition fail?
(Easier to deal with, that is, because +Cox did not resign.)
Put it another way: did the recent California Appeals court decision in favor of TEC fail? The answer is, no. At least, not yet. There is a California Supreme Court hearing coming up on this highly deficient ruling by the appeals court. After the high court rules, then we will be able to say whether the appeals court ruling failed. And not until then.
Who is the competent authority to determine if +Cox’ deposition fails? HOB, at least, is such a competent authority. If +Cox presents himself at the next HOB meeting, and he is allowed to be seated by vote of the HOB, we will have to conclude that the deposition failed. There may be other methods. In the mean time, the deposition stands. The HOB has deposed +Cox from participation in TEC as a bishop.
Now let’s step outside the tiny circus ring we call TEC. Is +Cox still a Bishop? Is there anyone of competent authority that can affirm that +Cox is still a bishop? Well if a competent authority such as the head and governing body of Southern Cone recognizes him as a bishop, he’s a bishop. But not in TEC. End of story.
Aside from their deep pockets funding an enormous amount of painful property disputes, the TEC circus ring is rapidly becoming a deep well full of sound and fury signifying nothing. I say this with apologies to those who would prefer to adhere to the “inside strategy.” For these folk everything that TEC says and does has the capability to inflict deep pain. But, unfortunately, there is no “inside strategy”.
For the rest of us, it has come time to ignore the sound and fury, even while we fight to prevail over the deep pockets.
Brian (30),
Impatient pragmatism is what caused the whole mess in the first place, and is, in fact, the precedent set for how to get things done in TEC since at least the 1970’s.
Beyond TEC’s dysfunction in this matter, I would even go so far as to say that the Christian faith can not be defined as “pragmatic”, nor should it be practiced as such. This might be a fun discussion.
But back to the matter at hand, not only do I agree with Sarah’s assessment, but want to add that General Convention DOES determine C&C;each time it meets, and then we live it until the next time around. We don’t act disaccordingly until we change it; we change it and then act accordingly. If the former, then we are actively engaged in providing for dysfuntion within the Church; no matter how you define pragmatism, that would seem to tragically undermine practicality (not to mention trust).
Thus, the mantra should be right now, “Go back and do it right.” If congress can, certainly we can.
#28 Brian of T19 wrote:
[blockquote] You are correct that +Schofield is a bishop in good standing in the Province of the Southern Cone. He is an Anglican Bishop. He is not, however, a bishop in the Anglican Communion [/blockquote]
Brian, you seem to have contradicted yourself in this very statement. If you acknowledge +Schofield as “a bishop in good standing in the province of the Southern Cone”, and that “he is an Anglican Bishop”, then how can he not be a bishop in the Anglican Communion? Last I checked, the Province of the Southern Cone was still in good standing with the AC. Archbishop Gregory Venables is still in good standing with the AC last I checked. He is Bishop Schofield’s leader in the Province of the Southern Cone. The Province of the Southern Cone is an internationally recognized part of the Anglican Communion. How does any of this make Bishop Schofield “not” a bishop in the Anglican Communion?
Please clarify your understanding. I’m afraid I just don’t follow.
And I can find no “express command that he have no further association with TEC.â€
From +Schofield
“In welcoming you to the Province of the Southern Cone on December 8th it is my clear understanding that even though you are allowing a period of discernment for those clergy who are still undecided, it would be highly inappropriate for any officer or leader within the Diocese of San Joaquin to be currently undecided or clearly within the Episcopal Church and continue as an officer or leader. The requirement governing each diocese of the Southern Cone is that all members of Diocesan Council, Standing Committee, and those selected as representatives at Synod be recognized Members of this Province.†++Venables to +Schofield
My Bishop doesn’t get hung up on his ego to the point of saving face like many others do. I know this because I know my bishop. If he were to be disinvited which I know that at this point he is not, he would have no problem in admitting that he had been disinvited openly if it ever was to come to that. He cares more for what God thinks of him rather than what man thinks of him.
#36, Brian,
Just what is your point here? You clearly contradicted yourself in your statement made in comment #28. Either Bishop Schofield is a Bishop of the AC, or he isn’t. If he’s recognized by Abp Venables as a Bishop in his province (which he most certainly is), then he’s clearly a bishop of the AC. Archbishop Venables was just here in the United States, and publicly recognized Bishop Schofield as a bishop in his province. The Diocese of San Juaquin of the Southern Cone is publicly recognized.
I’ll refer you to two articles by Sarah Hey – an excerpt is below followed by the links.
Back in 2000, when the Primates of Rwanda and Southeast Asia created a missionary activity called the AMiA in the U.S., and consecrated two bishops the then Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, did not recognize those bishops’ ministries as bishops of the Anglican Communion for several reasons.
First, there is a “one province, one geographic region” principle [although actually there are some notable exceptions to that rule], which is based on Lambeth resolutions from 1988 and 1998, which in turn were based on much earlier “assumptions”.
— The Lambeth Conference of 1930 articulated the formal definition of the “Anglican Communion†in a resolution as “those duly constituted dioceses, provinces or regional Churches in communion with the See of Canterbury†with three characteristics, among them that they are “bound together†“by mutual loyalty sustained through the common counsel of the bishops in conference†and that they are “particular or national churchesâ€.
— Resolution 72 of the 1988 Lambeth Conference reaffirmed “its unity in the historical position of respect for diocesan boundaries and the authority of bishops within these boundariesâ€.
— Both resolutions speak to the general principle that the Archbishop of Canterbury recognizes one church within a region as the “official†franchise of the Anglican Communion within that region.
Second, only those bishops in the one province of a geographic region that is the “franchise of the Anglican Communion” are in communion with Canterbury.
Third, and finally, only those in communion with Canterbury are in fact in the Anglican Communion — that is, they then are invited to participate in the “councils of the church” that is the Anglican Communion. There may be Anglican entities that are connected to provinces of the Anglican Communion — but that is not the same thing as being within the Anglican Communion and recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Thus, the only Anglican entity in the USA that is in communion with Canterbury and is thus a part of the Anglican Communion is an Episcopal parish in an Episcopal diocese. An ECUSA parish, in an ECUSA diocese.
Were a bishop of an alternate Anglican entity within the U.S. to be recognized as in communion with Canterbury, that would be the de facto establishment of an alternate province within the region of the U.S. There would then be two Canterbury-recognized Anglican entities within one geographic territory. But that creation of a Canterbury-recognized alternate province of the Anglican Communion has not, in fact, occurred . . . yet.
+Schofield’s so-called “deposition” was tilting at windmills…..a waste of time, since he had already resigned as Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin. Schori’s action therefore was one of spite, and is being treated as such; to the point where five TEC bishops and their Standing Committees have publicly told her that she was wrong in doing it.
Brian, excuse me, but since +John-David Schofield IS a member of the House of Bishops in the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone of the Americas, which IS, I remind you, a member province of the Anglican Communion, does it not stand to reason……by any standards which are commonly accepted by most people…….that he IS, in fact, a bishop of the Anglican Communion? He IS, after all, one of the most highly-respected bishops of Christ’s One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, who happens to practice what he preaches……unlike some well-known TEC bishops whose names need not be mentioned.
#40 Well, Brian, I respectfully disagree with your analysis here. Since RW recognizes Abp Venables as in communion with Canterbury, and since Abp Venables recognizes Bp Schofield in communion with him (and part of his diocese), then I read it to recognize Bp Schofield as a Bishop of the AC.
You forget that these provinces outside of the U.S. which are recognizing the U.S. based bishops are doing it as an “emergency” measure in response to a pastoral call for “alternate primatial oversight” due to the actions of TEC, which are contrary to Scripture. Virtually ALL of the Primates accepting U.S. based parishes and dioceses into their provinces have stated it’s a “temporary” measure. They ALL stated that if TEC were to reverse its action and return to the teachings of Scripture, then ALL these parishes and dioceses, would again return to their original geographical recognition as being part of TEC.
This was an answer to a plea for alternate primatial oversight, and nothing else. NONE of it has been stated to be permanent as of YET!!! It will depend on what TEC decides to do, whether they will become “permanent” arrangements or not.
As of yet, RW has not disinvited Bp Schofield to the Lambeth Conference, as far as posters from his own diocese have stated here in this thread. Until I hear otherwise, Bp Schofield is still a Bishop in the AC, and also a Bishop of the Province of the Southern Cone, a part of the AC.
1. Brian is correct that a person can be a bishop in an Anglican Province yet still not be recognized as an “Anglican Communion bishop” by the ABC. Gene Robinson, along with the CANA and AMiA bishops, are all examples of this.
2. Brian is not correct that the ABC has rendered any decision on Schofield – at least not anything that has been made public. Unless Schofield has his Lambeth invitation revoked, the only conclusion is that Schofield remains a recognized “Anglican Communion bishop.”
3. Brian and Sarah are both correct in their own ways about Schofield’s deposition. TEC will ACT as if the deposition is valid, and all consequences of a deposition within TEC will flow as such. And that is what matters, at least as far as TEC is concerned. An analogy would be a dictator who calls an election, sees that he has lost the vote, suppresses the publication of the results, and declares that he was won the election. Did he win? No. But he can act like he won and so in that sense he did “win” the election.
4. Regarding the import of Lamb’s email. It clearly was not an official Lambeth invitation. And it is highly unlikely that Rowan will have disinvited Schofield at this time. Remember that Rowan appointed an advisory committee to consider the various invitations and what should be done about them. I would think that it would be extremely unlikely that Rowan would act until that committee made its recommendations. What’s more, if Rowan disinvited Schofield now, he would be implicitly turning his back on his ACI allies (who have been willing to host several very damning indictments of TEC’s abuse of the canons as they applied to Schofield). Does anyone really think Rowan would make such a move now? No way. The more I think of it, the more I think that Jerry Lamb was taken an email completely out of context and is misrepresenting it, either out of ignorance or to score a cheap and temporary propaganda win.
No Brian from T19 you are wrong! Bishop John-David is very much a bishop in the Anglican Communion. He is a bishop in good standing with the HoB in the Province of the Southern Cone along with all of the other bsihops in that Province which it the Province of the Southern Cone, is very much a part of the Worldwide Anglican Communion….like it or not! No one with Authority has said otherwise or that he isn’t a Bishop in the Anglican Communion.
[blockquote]Only General Convention and, at that time, the HoB have the ability to determine the meaning of the Constitution and Canons.[/blockquote]
LOLOLOLOL!!!! Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha! He!He!He! Oh my! You do have a problem with reality and illusion!
#46, Jamesw, I’m in agreement with you. At this point, Bp Schofield is still holding a valid invitation to Lambeth, as far as I’m aware. There is no knowledge made public yet of a withdrawal of his invitation by RW.
As to the email to Lamb, my gut feeling is just like yours. An email from a “manager” in the Lambeth group is NOT “official” as far as an invitation from RW. You may be right in your analysis of Lamb’s reaction to the email. In my opinion, RW truly needs to clarify this one. He needs to state only one sentence very clearly. He either did or did not invite Lamb to the Lambeth Conference.
Brian from T19,
My dear brother in Christ….I say this with much love as a fellow Christian….you are too thick for your own good! You are creating more muddy water with every post you put down on this issue. Please stop and at least recognize some reality here for the love of Him who loves you!
Jamesw, since Bishop Schofield IS a member of the House of Bishops of the Anglican Church in the Southern Cone of the Americas, he IS an Anglican Communion bishop. Nothing to the contrary has ever been stated by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
[blockquote]”… think that Jerry Lamb was taken an email
completely out of context and is misrepresenting it, either out of
ignorance or to score a cheap and temporary propaganda win.”[/blockquote]
Knowing what I know it is both! And as usual jamesw, you speak clear volumes …Thank you!
#50 Cennyydd, EXACTLY right. “Nothing to the contrary has ever been stated by the Archbishop of Canterbury.”
That’s my position on it too.
As to the other bishops mentioned by jamesw above, their status of being Bishops in the AC is truly debatable due to the events occurring in TEC, ACoC, etc. However, in the long run, there is only one person who says who’s a Bishop in His church. That is Jesus!
Amen mugsie! But, I and Cennydd and many like us here in the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin in the Province of the So. Cone, he is the Bishop and +Lamb is a pretender puppet with 815’s hand clearly up his back!
#53 ODC, you may be so right about +Lamb and 815. The whole thing regarding this whole invitation thing may be a total misunderstanding of an email by +Lamb, and jamesw says above. I just sent an email to Canterbury requesting clarification (one sentence) telling us whether +Lamb “was” invited or “not” invited. We’ll see if that clarification comes out or not. Like many here on this thread, I lost my respect for RW a while back. I truly was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt for a long time. But as things got only worse, and his consistently not making firm statements to discipline TEC and other provinces clearly acting contrary to Scripture, I lost any trust in him. The clincher for me was New Orleans when he stated publicly that the “deadline” decided on by the primates for the response from TEC, was NOT a “deadline”. I clearly read the DES Communique, and it CLEARLY stated it was a deadline. For RW to state it wasn’t was just an outright lie. I lost all respect for him after that.
It’s been so obvious how defiant TEC and ACoC have become. They sneering in the face of Christ with their bold proclamations of SSB and such. The gospel they teach is the “other gospel” we were warned about.
2 Corinthians 11:1-4
1 Oh, that you would bear with me in a little folly–and indeed you do bear with me. 2 For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. 3 But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity* that is in Christ. 4 For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted–you may well put up with it!
Like verse 3 states, they’ve been deceived by the craftiness of satan, so their minds have been corrupted from the simplicity that is Christ.
It’s supposed to be RW’s job to defend the sheep in his charge. He’s supposed to stand up and proclaim the truth as Scripture gave it to us. It’s his responsibility to send away anyone and STOP anyone who tries to teach anything contrary to the Scriptures. Instead he’s bought into their pack of lies and even been deceived by satan himself, as evidenced by his earlier writings. I still have not seen a repentance from RW for his earlier writings. So, I’m lead to believe he still believes those things. That being the case, I cannot recognize him as a true servant in the church that Christ founded. Neither can I recognize any bishop, priest, etc. who does not teach the truth gospel from the Bible as it is written.
53. Yes, and with TEC paying most Anglican Communion expenses, the ABC will LISTEN and OBEY when TEC asks that +Lamb be invited. Of course there MUST have been ‘communications’ between 815 and the ABC on this. +Schofield is indeed a bishop in good standing in the Prov of the Southern Cone; it will be interesting to see next steps!
Rowan Williams stated that the diocese is the constituent building block of the Anglican Communion. The diocese decided to come under Southern Cone.
Currently there is overlapping jurisdictions in San Joaquin. This is unusual but not unique. (Overlapping jurisdictions exist in Europe, the Philippines and Canada.)
#56, hyacinth, it is my understanding that the Lambeth Conference is the instrument of communion whereas the Archbishop of Canterbury recognizes who’s in communion with Canterbury by inviting them to the conference. If he doesn’t invite an individual, it’s my understanding that is his act of not recognizing them in communion with Canterbury.
If there’s more to it, and there most likely is, then would someone else please elaborate on what I’ve said?
I may be wrong, but I believe that in the past, the invitations have gone out to all bishops. Nowadays, however, the number of bishops has grown to the point where Canterbury has limited the invitations to currently-sitting diocesans and coadjutors only.
#57, you’re right. RW did say that to Bp Howe in Florida. Yes, the Diocese of San Joaquin decided to come under the Southern Cone. However, this is a first. There is no other history of a diocese leaving TEC to become a diocese of another province. That’s where the warp is. Nobody really knows how to handle it. There are no canons to address this (not that it would make any difference based on the recent actions of TEC in regard to canons).
It’s tricky. To me, as long as RW maintains the invitation to Bp Schofield as valid, then he’s still in communion with Canterbury.
I am disappointed with the matter-of-fact way in which this invitation appears to have been offered, allowing Lamb to flaunt it as he is doing, but I’m not sure that the ABC had any other choice but to invite him. Bp. Lamb is a bishop in good standing in a province that remains, sadly, a fully constitutive member province of the Anglican Communion. We also should acknowledge that Bp. Lamb was a bishop in good standing before he took over the rump TEC diocese that is the only TEC diocese in “all of inland Central California.” While I believe that his installment as bishop there is most certainly an uncanonical act, the ABC is not yet in a position to rule on which of the three San Joaquin entities is legitimate or the most legitimate. In addition, while +Lamb is bishop of only a tiny little spoonful of episcopalians, the ABC appropriately recognizes them by inviting Lamb.
I think it also bears repeating that the transfer of the original diocese to the Province of the Southern Cone is completely without precedent and needs to have some of the nuts and bolts worked out. I completely applaud it, but we should expect that even among the orthodox we will have some serious differences about how and when it should be formally recognized as a member diocese of Southern Cone.
I am with jamesw and cennydd regarding the status of +Schofield’s invitation. At this juncture, there is no reason to believe that he will be disinvited. Furthermore, if he remains an invitee of Lambeth and attends, he will actually set-up kind of showdown that takes his illegal deposition and the other San Joaquin issues to a forum at the highest levels of the Communion, and provides an opportunity to force action against the scorched-earth policies of the TEC hierarchy and their roots in heretical teaching.
Mugsie writes:
[blockquote]There is no other history of a diocese leaving TEC to become a diocese of another province. [/blockquote]
This is not correct. The diocese of Liberia exited ECUSA, I believe. Perhaps even more than once.
All we have is that a bureaucrat is looking forward to Jerry Lamb’s presence at Lambeth. This does not equate to an invitation. I will await official confirmation. But…
If Rowan Williams really has extended an invitation to a mere interim bishop, especially one whose nomination is so canonically clouded, it shows that he is a snake, totally in the pocket of 815. That should lay to rest any hope of a Canterbury centered communion. Rather, a Canterbury centered communion would be actually an 815 centered one.
#62 Robroy,
It’s news to me if the diocese of Liberia has previously exited ECUSA as an entire diocese. I’ve read from several sources in this past year that San Joaquin was the first entire diocese to depart TEC. It has been looked on as a test. KJS seems to even be looking at this as a first. She’s telling everyone their (815’s) events of late regarding San Joaquin are setting a “pattern” for any future dioceses that may consider leaving. She used this as a threat for any other dioceses attempting to leave.
If anyone else knows anything about this, please let us know. I can only speak for myself, and I’m not aware of any previous exit of an entire diocese from TEC.
mugsie,
It’s not that a diocese has departed from PECUSA/ECUSA/TEC, it’s HOW that departure took place that is a controversy.
With text borrowed from the website of All Souls, Okinawa, here’s just one example: “In 1968, the “missionary” Diocese of Okinawa was formed and Edmond Lee Browning was chosen as our first Bishop. In 1972, in conjunction with the transfer of Okinawa from a U.S. possession back to Japan, the Diocese was transferred from the Episcopal Church to the Nippon Sei Ko Kai and Paul Saneaki Nakamura was elected Bishop.”
Diocese to different Province. I wonder how they handled any letters dimissory. Ask +Ed Browning, I suppose.
Very good point robroy! And on that note if +Lamb is invited in the true sense of an invitation then as irregualr as it is under its circumstances why not invite Bsihop Minns and those in CANA & AMiA and VGR? Why stop at an irregular and uncanonically seated bishop?
Cennydd wins….! We are not a Canterbury Centered Communion…. as it is it appears we are an 815 TEC Centered Communion. Has +Rowan gotten the memo yet? 🙂
#65 Rob Eaton, thanks. I was not aware of any previous history of a whole diocese leaving TEC. I stand corrected. However, you are right, this definitely is the most disputed example of a diocese exiting TEC. That is definitely a first.
I also think you hit on a very important point in the latter part of your comment. That’s a good question that definitely needs to be answered. If Bishop Lamb did indeed receive an official invitation (not yet confirmed), then that definitely begs the question of why Bishops Minns, et al did not also receive official invitations. The seating of Bishop Lamb is indeed MOST irregular.
Rowan Williams, another one for you. What the heck are you going to do about this “irregular” bishop if you did indeed offer him an official invitation? Are you going to give the same courtesy to all other “irregular” bishops by inviting them to attend Lambeth? Anglicans around the world will definitely want to know.
w.w. wrote: ” ‘Note to congregations. Medical insurance through the Medical Trust will begin on 1 July 2008.’
Ah, the “ties that really bind†so many clergy to their denomination: the pension plan and, more important, group medical insurance coverage…. ”
You’re right, ww — my concern about whether my family has access to medical care is a clear indicator I’m not a committed disciple of Jesus. Thanks for clearing that up!
Look, I for one would want all people to be able to have access to medical insurance for themselves and their families. But, I think that Fr. Hall putting that tidbit on a website was unwise. That should be something that is communicated via a private letter/memo to the clergy that is applies to and sent to either to their home address or their church address but not on a Diocesan Website. That was just not smart IMHO!
Hey, mugsie,
I was going to post another one when – of all things – my job distracted me. : )
Libera.
The Missionary District of Cape Palmas (etc.) was set up back in 1844 with the establishment of PECUSA congregations by missionaries. John Payne became the first (Missionary) Bishop, elected, as all Missionary Bishops were, by the House of Bishops. As a special note, in 1884 the first PECUSA, and Liberian, African American bishop, Samuel Ferguson, was elected. Robert Campbell, OHC, was elected Missionary Bishop in 1925, reflecting a major portion and commitment of the overseas work of that religious order, which held things together there for a long time. Along with other missionary districts in ECUSA at the time (such as San Joaquin), Liberia became a “full-fledged†diocese in 1970. And then in 1982, the Diocese of Liberia left ECUSA and became a full member of the Church of the Province of West Africa.
So there’s another one.
Interesting that as recent as last December, 2007, when an election for a new bishop in Liberia had been declared invalid, the relationship with TEC was still on some people’s minds. From a press release comes this quote. ‘Also commenting on the issue in a rather frustrated mood, an official of Diocesan Council (name withheld) contended that Liberia will pull out of the Province if it (Province) insists on nullifying the results of the election. ‘In another development, a laity who also begged for anonymity wondered to whether the Convention or the Canon, which comes first. He however said: “It is about time that Liberia rethinks its relationship with the Province,” noting, “We do not benefit anything from the Province, rather, it is the Province that benefits from us.”
He said it would even be better if the Episcopal Church of Liberia goes back to ECUSA (Episcopal Church of the United States of America) noting: “Although we pulled out of ECUSA, that group is still supporting our diocese.”’
Following your posts throughout this thread has given me a pretty clear picture of the type of people who are in the Southern Cone San Joaquin. Thanks.
Brian from T19,
You are welcome if you are not being derogatory and if you are then all I can say is that we both support our Bishop and the clergy in our Diocese that have made a great deal of sacrifice for the True Word of God and not for man’s need of political correctness to justify sinful behavior and bless that which God calls an abomination and who can honestly say that Jesus is the only Way, Truth, and Life and no one gets to the Father except through Him. And again if you are being derogatory then that tells me alot about you and those in your diocese.
Blessings Brian
RE: “That’s all well and good for the philosophers, but it lacks pragmatism. Practical consequences and real effects determine truth and meaning.”
Stalin could not, of course, have said it better.
But let’s substitute the correct words for what you said.
“That’s all well and good for the [people who care about truth], but it lacks pragmatism. Practical consequences and real effects [are determined by power and force, not truth].”
RE: “You can, perhaps correctly, claim that an action did not occur,” . . . .
Yes indeed I can — when the action did not occur.
RE: ” . . . but the effects and consequences amply demonstrate that it did in all but name.”
Well, no. The “effects and consequences” of being shot by Stalin for “betrayal of the laws of the Mother Russia” do not demonstrate, in fact, that a person is a “traitor” to her country at all or violated any laws. Being shot by Stalin does not mean that the pronouncement of the Minister of Justice was the truth or in keeping with the law. The “effects and consequences” of being shot by Stalin merely demonstrate that Stalin has — for the moment — superior firepower.
RE: “Perhaps the salve of being “technically correct†makes the situation better for those suffering the consequence . . . ”
It is actually no salve at all. But I have a belief — truth will always come out, like a live thing, like wildfire, like water flowing downhill. One cannot — ultimately — stop it. So the task of those who care about truth is to tell it, over and over, publicly and loudly. I am satisfied — quite satisfied — that that is being done. And I believe that history — perhaps a sooner history than we might imagine — will bear out the truth-tellers, and shame the liars.
RE: “However, standing on principle is the express lane to martyrdom and not necessarily a catalyst for change.”
Not certain what that means. The violation of truth and the gross abuse of power has already brought a miscarriage of justice. Telling the truth about that fact will not bring further martyrdom — but merely the truth.
Actually not being derogatory-just interested in the mindset of the people who left. You both have quite a passion. I’m not actually very representative of my Diocese, nor am I representative of ++Katharine’s leadership
Earlier in the thread Brian From T19 wrote that the HoB let Schori assume “dictatorial powers”–that was the phrase, carrying I think a strong negative connotation, as if she should not be permitted such powers. Suppose Brian is right–she is operating outside the nomos/law of the provincial church, and the HoB lets it happen.
It may be most of the HoB would let her act that way because they feel the existence of the provincial church is at stake, and forbidding her such powers would carry an unacceptably hight risk of being suicidal: “The Consitution is not a suicide pact,” as one well-respected Justice once said.
The Episcopal Church has entered what political/legal theorists call a “state of exception” in which what passes as the community’s Soveriegn is in fact designated as the one permitted to step outside the Law inorder to preserve the community ordered by that Law. Any community intent on surviving must have provisions for a state of exception.
What matters is not so much that the community periodically enters into a state of excpetion–only a naive Polyanna would doubt such necessity, particularly in our fallen condition. What matters is merely that the state of exception not become normal and permanent.
Anglican Scotist: Fascinating comment. On the one hand we are told by the PB that there is a mere handful of malcontents leaving – barely a ripple. On the other hand, we are told that the situation is so dire that a form of “martial law” must be declared and the PB must be granted tyrannical powers to step outside the law in order to save the institution (the Church must be destroyed in order to save the Church!?!?!).
Do you know what Anglican Scotist? It doesn’t pass the smell test. Either a major crisis confronts TEC, and imposing martial law is a wholly inadequate and unchristian solution while the Tryant rejects negotiation, OR TEC faces a relatively small number of parishes and people leaving, and imposing martial law is tremendous overkill.
jamesw,
You would be absolutely right to see a contradiction, were it not for the fact that a few well-organized, well-funded and determined people can in fact undermine an institution. Even supposing our PB has her numbers right and tehre are only a few Separatists, it might well be that it only takes a few to throw the existence of the province into question.
How can that be, you ask? The right wing is a Minority in TEC–no news flash there–but the right is a definite Majority in the Anglican Communion. The Minorit yin TEC allying with teh Majority in the AC can have Power to disrupt TEC that it would otherwise not have.
As to the other point: Would it destroy the Church if the PB operated outside her own canons? Did Lincoln’s suspension of Habeas Corpus in ’61 destroy the Constitution-or undermine the Union? How about the extraordinary use of Executive Power in the Emancipation Proclamation? If it’s good enuff for Lincoln, well by golly it’s good enuff for Schori. Enuff said.
Anglican Scotist, for someone who is generally considered to be even-handed and circumspect (albeit almost always in defense of whatever the progressivists are doing), your comments above are laughable. Firstly, the design of the office of Presiding Bishop was intended to prevent an ecclesiastical sovereignty of any sort, and provides for only very limited executive authority. Secondly, are you suggesting that you support and have supported the Bush Administration and the Homeland Security Act since the United States “has entered what political/legal theorists call a “state of exception†in which what passes as the community’s Soveriegn is in fact designated as the one permitted to step outside the Law inorder to preserve the community ordered by that Law. Any community intent on surviving must have provisions for a state of exception…”?
I daresay that your ire has probably been raised to the extreme anytime a Bush Administration official has suggested that, due to the clear and present threat posed to us by the terrorist networks of Islamic extremists, an illegal action was in reality legal because it was justified to preserve our national community.
However, I would agree that it is only a very small step from Duns Scotus to Machiavelli, and another small step from Machiavelli to the wartime administration of the great liberal, Woodrow Wilson.
continued from #84 above (please insert at the end of the last sentence of the last paragraph) –
…Woodrow Wilson, who appears to fulfill your glorious vision of benevolent dictatorship in a crisis, and makes Abraham Lincoln look like the boy officers in the film [i] Taps[/i].
young joe,
You appear to know more than you are letting on.
Anyhow, I agree wholly that the canons closely circumscribe the PB’s normal range of action. No doubt. But that is one thing; what a PB is permitted in extraordinary circumstances is another thing. To be brief: that a PB be permitted to operate in a state of exception to the canons is perfectly consitent with her power being circumscribed by the canons. It is paradoxical, at least, to require exceptions to the canons be written into the canons.
The Bush administration is busy normalizing the state of exception, making extraordinary powers the norm. That goes beyond Lincoln, even Wilson, and–dare I say–Schori. That an executive can operate in the state of exception: that’s not exceptional. For such Powers to become normal is anotgher thing entirely, a problem of another order.
From “the manager” not the Archbishop? Interesting parish list on web site – a number of congregations in rented facilities.
Is it normal for interim bishops to receive invitations? Rowan Williams has sole power to invite, but it appears some bureaucrat is writing the email. I would not be surprised however. He seems to be doing the American’s bidding, e.g., the whole indaba format. And actually Gene Robinson’s non-invitation will allow VGR to sell more books and get more camera mugging time. The American delegation probably went over and asked, “Please reconsider! It is sooo unfair. (wink, wink, say no more.)”
People talk not giving up on a Canterbury communion but if Canterbury bows to 815’s every whim, it is really an 815 centered communion.
If anyone, perhaps hiding under a rock somewhere, has been in doubt as to Canterbury’s intentions and sympathies, this should bring final clarity. The situation in San Joaquin is uncanonical to say the least, and yet here is the Lambeth invitation, while some CANA and AMiA bishops are ignored.
Katherine: [i]some[/i] AMiA and CANA bishops? Aren’t they all excluded? I don’t much care if the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin’s bishop is going, but what of the Southern Cone’s Diocese of San Joaquin?
So the obvious question is has Bishop Schofield’s invitation been revoked? Or was he not planning to be there anyway?
So the obvious question is has Bishop Schofield’s invitation been revoked? Or was he not planning to be there anyway?
I don’t think we’ll know-my guess is that it will be revoked privately and then +Schofield will say he was not planning on attending – that way everyone ‘saves face.’ However, with the state of the AC now, I wouldn’t be surprised if it rapidly became public info.
The situation in San Joaquin is uncanonical to say the least, and yet here is the Lambeth invitation,The situation in San Joaquin is uncanonical to say the least, and yet here is the Lambeth invitation,…
I’m not sure this should be read as a definitive statement on the issues. The facts are that +Schofield was deposed. If it is a violation of canons, then that decision is subject to being reversed. Canterbury is simply recognizing +Lamb’s status as it exists today.
RE: “The facts are that +Schofield was deposed.”
No, he wasn’t.
I would think, though, that Schofield’s invitation will be rescinded — it fits with who Rowan is as a person.
Well, the ABC is hardly expected to be conversant with American canons, given that Bonnie Anderson states he cannot “get” the American baptismal covenant bit. So – what’s a few broken canons and diocesan invasions and false depositions and abdication of episcopal function betwixt money providers and the ABC, anyway? There’s only the “Anglican Communion” to think of in an off-hand sort of way, if at all. The world revolves around the liberal elite of 815 and the American zeitgest, doesn’t it?
Sounds like this Lambeth will be more of the same futile ‘Listening’ and ‘Dialogue’ with the usual goals of compromise and convincing the orthodox of the glories and legitimacy of homosexual practice and identity and experience and of holding plural truths in tension. McLaren and Toscano will reiterate the revisionist ‘gospel.’
I cannot fail to notice the ‘planners’ have not invited Fr. Mario Bergner or Peter Ould to speak…or Fr. David Kyle Foster to balance the message of Toscano. Or a man of God who preaches the true Gospel of the Church of the Ages to balance McLaren’s self-taught self-generated ‘gospel’.
In a sense, the poor are being used by the agendites to mask and distract attention from the real issue at the bottom of the Anglican crisis – the opposition to and denial of the Lordship of Jesus Christ…denial of His true Gospel and of the necessity of the Cross and Blood, and denial of sin and of His power over sin.
Jerry Lamb will fit in very nicely with the programme.
I agree with Akinola, there is no evidence that this Lambeth is an honest or edifying Christian endeavor.
I wonder if +Schofield’s invitation will be rescinded with the possible impact that will have on the Southern Cone attendance. Lambeth already has representatives of less than half of the world’s Anglicans. Seems to me big efforts have been made to encourage greater attendance. But what do I know?
No, he wasn’t.
Bad logic Sarah. If John murders Tom is Tom dead? Sure, John can’t legally murder Tom. It is absolutely forbidden and a violation of the Law. So by your logic, no, Tom is not dead.
Except that dead is a state that can exist apart from the law, whereas deposed is a state that exists solely because of law.
Friends,
I think the reality which we must face is that this is perhaps it for any orthodox Anglicans, in terms of Lambeth. If puppet bishops are to be included and rightful bishops excluded, how can any good come of that? I just spoke with a bishop in England a few minutes ago and he feels that it is very much a done deal that the liberals, or whatever you want to call them, have the upper hand and its very much their show. Don’t get me wrong, I’d like to see something good come out of Lambeth, but I stopped holding my breath a long time ago. I’m a non-stipended minister with CANA and I’ll be watching what happens at GAFCON and seeing what becomes of the Common Cause Partnership in the next few months. So much valuable time has already been lost and none of us are getting any younger. I must have heard from half a dozen evangelicals who are just about ready to throw-in-the-towel in terms of Anglicanism because they cannot see a future for traditional, Prayer Book Anglicans. I can only advise them to exercise a bit more patience and see what this Summer brings; but how long O Lord, how long? I think there are perhaps many Anglicans who may resort to becoming Anglican Survivalists if something isn’t done soon. People may end-up hunkering-down and reading prayers in their Dining Rooms with their families, which they should be doing anyway, but they may lose confidence that theywill ever have an Anglican Church they can trust to attend where they are. Before this is all over I think Satan is going to have to expand that Lake of Fire.
Brian from T19,
You of course may think as you like it is your right to do so. The problem is when you speak of things you think your words come out completely wrong!
In the eyes of those on the liberal left who think that your Dictator Bishop KJS, has all the power to do as she pleases is the way of the Anglican Communion World and of TEC way…. you have set up a falsehood that most all Anglicans in the WWAC know better. But, living an illusion is very dangerous and damaging to ones health.
Fact: Bishop John-David is a bishop in good standig in the Province of the Southern Cone. He resigned his position in TEC’s House of Bishops of which his resignation was not, and may I reapeat, was not, accepted by them. Then they set out to depose him but failed, let me say it again, FAILED, to get the required votes to make it legal by the rules of the Canons and Constitutions of TEC. But, heck, to the liberal lefts that’s just a formality that is really not that big of a deal so in their minds and yours of the illusion that you all seem to be living in just have a real hard time recognizing the Truth of the matter and not just in the C’s & C’s of TEC but in the Bible as well seems to be a challenge. I for one tire of the repeated falsehoods that you ‘all continue to spout. As if you keep spouting it it will become reality. Just like ordaining a gay man to the episcopate! If we just do it and say it is a good and right thing to to do everyone will just go along and all will be well……NOT!!!!!!!
Brian, let’s get one thing straight: Our bishop, +John-David Schofield, IS DEFINITELY GOING TO LAMBETH!
If he were to be “disinvited,” we would regard that as a deliberate slap in the face directed at us and our archbishop, ++Gregory Venables……and I doubt very much that even Rowan Cantuar would be that stupid. As One Day Closer has said…..and I agree with her…..you are way off base. Therefore, may I suggest that you get in touch with reality?
Can someone clarify for me who is eligible to attend Lambeth? Is it just the currently presiding bishops or is anyone who has not been deposed AND is a bishop – retired or otherwise eligible to be invited? If the later is the case, it would seem to me that perhaps Lamb was invited on the basis of his having been bishop of north california in the past and retains the title of bishop? Is he invited as a bishop or as the bishop of the Diocese of San Joaquin? I recognize that he may have received it at the SJ Diocesan office but that in and of itself is not an acknowledgement of his being the bishop of SJ. Clarification would be appreciated.
Some thoughts on this.
1. One would think that Lamb would put the best face foward to this invitation. Yet what Lamb has told us is that this was an email from the “manager” of the Lambeth Conference telling him “”we are expecting you at the Lambeth Conference”. That doesn’t sound to me like the official invitation. It sounds to me like some sort of semi-official courtesy invitation issued at arms-length from the ABC.
2. I don’t think that this email correspondence that Lamb is trumpeting necessarily means that Schofield has been disinvited. If you think of the ABC’s options, one of the safer paths would have been to maintain Schofield’s invitation but to offer a back-door invitation to Lamb.
3. Of course, if Schofield was to be disinvited, one would expect that it would also be done at arms-length from the ABC. I don’t think that Schofield would keep it “quiet” to “save face”. Rather, I think it would be widely advertised around the Communion as a rallying cry against the ABC. A disinvitation by the ABC, coupled with the canonical irregularities surrounding the situation with Schofield, coupled with TEC’s and the ACC’s aggressive pursuit of SSB’s, would surely move more wavering moderate-conservative primates towards Anis, if not GAFCON.
But we shall see. My sense is that Rowan Williams is losing control of the Anglican Communion, and the necessity of “official recognition” by him is losing its cache. As Gandalf said in LOTR “The board is set, the pieces are moving, we come to it at last, the great battle of our time.” I think that many of those committed to GAFCON have realized and accepted that for a time, they will be operating outside of the ABC’s sphere. They themselves will maintain their connection to the ABC, but they will be building new Anglican structures in North America which the ABC will not recognize yet. And these structures will only be recognized by the ABC once the financial power of TEC/power of the British secular government over Lambeth Palace has been finally overthrown.
RE: “Bad logic Sarah. If John murders Tom is Tom dead?”
Irrelevant parallel, Brian. A person is only deposed if certain legal criteria are met. They were not.
One may, of course, “declare” someone deposed, just as someone may “declare” someone dead. But one must be actually deposed or dead before such declaration is accurate.
+John-David is rarely quiet about anything. And anyone who thinks he is at all interested in “saving face” really doesn’t know the man.
As I stated in a previous post, it is increasingly clear to me that +Williams is in the PB’s pocket. If +John-David is disinvited, and +Lamb invited after that sham of a deposition, that is if this all turns out to be true, I will regard +Williams’ authority as finished. And I have been one of +Cantuar’s greatest supporters these last five years. I kept wanting to believe he would act sensibly. But it is hard to avoid the conclusion that he is coming off the fence, or being pushed (both by 815, but also by the pro-GAFCON boycotters) in TEC’s direction. It makes me sick to think of how much trust I have placed in him.
The way the canons were used to get Jerry Lamb into office was a bit conflated, to put it mildly. The decision, though, was that he is seen as holding office as bishop on a “provisional” basis. To make that quite clear, some in the diocese talked it up as the election/appointment of him being “the Provisional Bishop”. The Canons have no such title – but who’s counting canons these days. Anyway, he is definitely not seen as a visiting bishop, nor as an interim bishop. Neither of those would provide the standing for an invitation to Lambeth. The authority granted to a bishop of provisional status would seem to be seen as more authoritative and more permanent. Perhaps a further sign of such diocesan authority would be as Bp Lamb’s name being recorded for Corp Sole basis. What diocese with any brains would make an “interim” bishop able to hold such legal status?!
The fact that he’s so happy about this notice means that a) he had no notice prior, and b) he hopes this might be one of those signals of validity to be used in court.
This has little to do with Bp Schofield. This has a lot to do with how 815 considers Bp Lamb — but we knew that already.
The smack is the Lambeth conference manager not being willing to suffer us fools who can see clearly that the consequences of the deposition failure at the HOB (likely to be considered an in-house and unresolved dispute by Lambeth office) determine Bp Lamb’s designation as a bishop of provisional status to be null and void.
Quite simple, really. Legislative action accomplished. Action challenged. 815 says all is well. Lambeth says, “ok, +Jerry, here’s your note. (If challenge is upheld, though, +Jerry, we won’t be able to invite you back in 2018, ok?)”
And 815 is more than likely paying for the trip for Bp Lamb.
I wonder how many other bishops around TEC will appreciate THAT?!
RGEaton
At this point, it’s hard to avoid #20’s conclusions. And the shame of it is, Williams really could have managed this crisis down with decisive action at a few key points. For example, immediately post-Dromantine, he could have declared himself bound as much to the opinion of the current primates as he thinks he is to George Carey’s obscure decisions, and said GCC has to comply with Dromantine, or none of its bishops are coming to Lambeth; “shucks, guys, my hands are tied, here.” I maintain that would have swung the HOB firmly to a stance of shelving The Agenda indefinitely, and might even have swung General Convention. Sure, the damage to his relations with the GCC would have been considerable, but that could have been repaired over time. In contrast, by snoozing, Rowan is losing, and will now end up with far more, and more widespread, damage to the AC. That is, damage to the AC in its embodiment as most of us would like to see it: as a worldwide, coherent communion. Whether Canterbury cares much for this vision is an open question; clearly, the GCC itself doesn’t.
Slightly off topic, but I couldn’t help but notice the announcement that immediately follow’s the one by Jerry Lamb:
[blockquote]From Canon Mark Hall:
Note to congregations. Medical insurance through the Medical Trust will begin on 1 July 2008.
[/blockquote]
Ah, the “ties that [i] really [/i] bind” so many clergy to their denomination: the pension plan and, more important, group medical insurance coverage….
w.w.
Alta Californian, you’re not alone in your misplaced trust; I was one of his supporters on VOL until earlier this year. Never again!
You of course may think as you like it is your right to do so. The problem is when you speak of things you think your words come out completely wrong!
Are you saying I have Aphasia? Oh my goodness I better loop moon wombat rail goose hand!
Brian from T19: You must like to watch House MD. We can use that as a basis for dialogue, and ignore those pesky canon issues :).
One Day Closer
You are correct that +Schofield is a bishop in good standing in the Province of the Southern Cone. He is an Anglican Bishop. He is not, however, a bishop in the Anglican Communion
You are correct that his resignation was not accepted. If it had been he would retain his voice in the TEC HoB and violated the ++Southern Cone’s express command that he no longer have any association with TEC.
+Schofield’s deposition did not fail. Here is why. Only General Convention and, at that time, the HoB have the ability to determine the meaning of the Constitution and Canons. Regardless of their perceived violation, they followed an agreed upon procedure that has only had a very small minority of bishops object after the fact,/i> Which leads to my next point.
You are correct that ++Katherine has assumed dictatorial powers. The reason that she has succeeded in taking absolute power is that the members of the HoB have allowed her to take this power. They are the only ones who can stop it and they, so far, have chosen not to. So her interpretation of the Constitution and Canons of TEC in this matter becomes the de facto final word. It is unfortunate that good men and women choose to do nothing, but the overwhelming majority of them do.
Cennydd,
You seem to have first hand knowledge of +Schofield’s plans and his status with Canterbury. Since my comment was regarding a future event, it is up to time to tell.
P.S. I have left several message for reality, but it is not returning my calls 😉
RE: “+Schofield’s deposition did not fail.”
It didn’t, tis true — since there is no such thing as “Schofield’s deposition” just as there is no such thing as “Sarah at T19’s corpse” [at the moment].
RE: “Only General Convention and, at that time, the HoB have the ability to determine the meaning of the Constitution and Canons.”
No — in fact, neither the GC nor the HOB “determine the meaning of the” C&C; the C&C;’s meaning exists, no matter what the HOB “determines” about its meaning. The HOB merely *enacts* the C&C;– or fails to, which in the case of the attempted deposition, they failed to.
The police attempt to enforce laws. They don’t “determine” the meaning of laws. They enforce them — or fail to enforce them. But when they fail to enforce them, they don’t therefore by their failure determine that the laws mean something entirely other than the law’s plain meaning.
w.w.: Yes, indeed, the ‘ties that bind’ are the pension fund and medical insurance which so many clergy families depend upon. Many clergy (esp those in the 55+ bracket) have others depending upon them, often very ill or with ‘pre-existing conditions’ which insurance companies would use to refuse coverage. So the clergy are forced to choose, just as millions of others in the US are forced to choose: keep one’s job or lose health insurance for one’s family and face bankruptcy from medical costs. That’s I’m not throwing rocks at the clergy who reluctantly stay with TEC; too often they are sweating out the days until retirement, and just keeping their heads down. One more example of how the way we in the US pay for healthcare desperately needs reform.
Sarah
That’s all well and good for the philosophers, but it lacks pragmatism. Practical consequences and real effects determine truth and meaning. You can, perhaps correctly, claim that an action did not occur, but the effects and consequences amply demonstrate that it did in all but name. Perhaps the salve of being “technically correct” makes the situation better for those suffering the consequence-I don’t know. However, standing on principle is the express lane to martyrdom and not necessarily a catalyst for change.
Uh, pardon me, Brian, but the ONLY person who can say whether or not +Schofield is a bishop of the Anglican Communion is Rowan Cantuar…….and he HAS NOT SAID THAT HE ISN’T, the last I heard. As of today, June 2nd, +John-David has not informed any of us in the diocese as to his intention not to attend Lambeth. My vicar is a member of the Diocesan Council, and I am a delegate to convention and am pretty well informed on diocesan business. If +John-David weren’t going to Lambeth as of yesterday, I’d have heard about it, I’m sure.
And I can find no “express command that he have no further association with TEC.”
Ah, but did +Schofield’s deposition fail?
Actually, a better test case would be, did +Cox’ deposition fail?
(Easier to deal with, that is, because +Cox did not resign.)
Put it another way: did the recent California Appeals court decision in favor of TEC fail? The answer is, no. At least, not yet. There is a California Supreme Court hearing coming up on this highly deficient ruling by the appeals court. After the high court rules, then we will be able to say whether the appeals court ruling failed. And not until then.
Who is the competent authority to determine if +Cox’ deposition fails? HOB, at least, is such a competent authority. If +Cox presents himself at the next HOB meeting, and he is allowed to be seated by vote of the HOB, we will have to conclude that the deposition failed. There may be other methods. In the mean time, the deposition stands. The HOB has deposed +Cox from participation in TEC as a bishop.
Now let’s step outside the tiny circus ring we call TEC. Is +Cox still a Bishop? Is there anyone of competent authority that can affirm that +Cox is still a bishop? Well if a competent authority such as the head and governing body of Southern Cone recognizes him as a bishop, he’s a bishop. But not in TEC. End of story.
Aside from their deep pockets funding an enormous amount of painful property disputes, the TEC circus ring is rapidly becoming a deep well full of sound and fury signifying nothing. I say this with apologies to those who would prefer to adhere to the “inside strategy.” For these folk everything that TEC says and does has the capability to inflict deep pain. But, unfortunately, there is no “inside strategy”.
For the rest of us, it has come time to ignore the sound and fury, even while we fight to prevail over the deep pockets.
[size=1][color=red][url=http://resurrectioncommunitypersonal.blogspot.com/]The Rabbit[/url][/color][color=gray].[/color][/size]
Brian (30),
Impatient pragmatism is what caused the whole mess in the first place, and is, in fact, the precedent set for how to get things done in TEC since at least the 1970’s.
Beyond TEC’s dysfunction in this matter, I would even go so far as to say that the Christian faith can not be defined as “pragmatic”, nor should it be practiced as such. This might be a fun discussion.
But back to the matter at hand, not only do I agree with Sarah’s assessment, but want to add that General Convention DOES determine C&C;each time it meets, and then we live it until the next time around. We don’t act disaccordingly until we change it; we change it and then act accordingly. If the former, then we are actively engaged in providing for dysfuntion within the Church; no matter how you define pragmatism, that would seem to tragically undermine practicality (not to mention trust).
Thus, the mantra should be right now, “Go back and do it right.” If congress can, certainly we can.
RGEaton
#28 Brian of T19 wrote:
[blockquote] You are correct that +Schofield is a bishop in good standing in the Province of the Southern Cone. He is an Anglican Bishop. He is not, however, a bishop in the Anglican Communion [/blockquote]
Brian, you seem to have contradicted yourself in this very statement. If you acknowledge +Schofield as “a bishop in good standing in the province of the Southern Cone”, and that “he is an Anglican Bishop”, then how can he not be a bishop in the Anglican Communion? Last I checked, the Province of the Southern Cone was still in good standing with the AC. Archbishop Gregory Venables is still in good standing with the AC last I checked. He is Bishop Schofield’s leader in the Province of the Southern Cone. The Province of the Southern Cone is an internationally recognized part of the Anglican Communion. How does any of this make Bishop Schofield “not” a bishop in the Anglican Communion?
Please clarify your understanding. I’m afraid I just don’t follow.
And I can find no “express command that he have no further association with TEC.â€
From +Schofield
“In welcoming you to the Province of the Southern Cone on December 8th it is my clear understanding that even though you are allowing a period of discernment for those clergy who are still undecided, it would be highly inappropriate for any officer or leader within the Diocese of San Joaquin to be currently undecided or clearly within the Episcopal Church and continue as an officer or leader. The requirement governing each diocese of the Southern Cone is that all members of Diocesan Council, Standing Committee, and those selected as representatives at Synod be recognized Members of this Province.†++Venables to +Schofield
My Bishop doesn’t get hung up on his ego to the point of saving face like many others do. I know this because I know my bishop. If he were to be disinvited which I know that at this point he is not, he would have no problem in admitting that he had been disinvited openly if it ever was to come to that. He cares more for what God thinks of him rather than what man thinks of him.
#36, Brian,
Just what is your point here? You clearly contradicted yourself in your statement made in comment #28. Either Bishop Schofield is a Bishop of the AC, or he isn’t. If he’s recognized by Abp Venables as a Bishop in his province (which he most certainly is), then he’s clearly a bishop of the AC. Archbishop Venables was just here in the United States, and publicly recognized Bishop Schofield as a bishop in his province. The Diocese of San Juaquin of the Southern Cone is publicly recognized.
I still have to ask, what is your point?
DITTO from me, ODC!
mugsie
I’ll refer you to two articles by Sarah Hey – an excerpt is below followed by the links.
Back in 2000, when the Primates of Rwanda and Southeast Asia created a missionary activity called the AMiA in the U.S., and consecrated two bishops the then Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, did not recognize those bishops’ ministries as bishops of the Anglican Communion for several reasons.
First, there is a “one province, one geographic region” principle [although actually there are some notable exceptions to that rule], which is based on Lambeth resolutions from 1988 and 1998, which in turn were based on much earlier “assumptions”.
— The Lambeth Conference of 1930 articulated the formal definition of the “Anglican Communion†in a resolution as “those duly constituted dioceses, provinces or regional Churches in communion with the See of Canterbury†with three characteristics, among them that they are “bound together†“by mutual loyalty sustained through the common counsel of the bishops in conference†and that they are “particular or national churchesâ€.
— Resolution 72 of the 1988 Lambeth Conference reaffirmed “its unity in the historical position of respect for diocesan boundaries and the authority of bishops within these boundariesâ€.
— Both resolutions speak to the general principle that the Archbishop of Canterbury recognizes one church within a region as the “official†franchise of the Anglican Communion within that region.
Second, only those bishops in the one province of a geographic region that is the “franchise of the Anglican Communion” are in communion with Canterbury.
Third, and finally, only those in communion with Canterbury are in fact in the Anglican Communion — that is, they then are invited to participate in the “councils of the church” that is the Anglican Communion. There may be Anglican entities that are connected to provinces of the Anglican Communion — but that is not the same thing as being within the Anglican Communion and recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Thus, the only Anglican entity in the USA that is in communion with Canterbury and is thus a part of the Anglican Communion is an Episcopal parish in an Episcopal diocese. An ECUSA parish, in an ECUSA diocese.
Were a bishop of an alternate Anglican entity within the U.S. to be recognized as in communion with Canterbury, that would be the de facto establishment of an alternate province within the region of the U.S. There would then be two Canterbury-recognized Anglican entities within one geographic territory. But that creation of a Canterbury-recognized alternate province of the Anglican Communion has not, in fact, occurred . . . yet.
Part 1
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/3096
Part 2
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/3117
+Schofield’s so-called “deposition” was tilting at windmills…..a waste of time, since he had already resigned as Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin. Schori’s action therefore was one of spite, and is being treated as such; to the point where five TEC bishops and their Standing Committees have publicly told her that she was wrong in doing it.
Cennydd
to the point where five TEC bishops
That represents exactly 4.5% of all Bishops entitled to vote in the HoB – what does the 95.5% of Bishops represent?
Brian, excuse me, but since +John-David Schofield IS a member of the House of Bishops in the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone of the Americas, which IS, I remind you, a member province of the Anglican Communion, does it not stand to reason……by any standards which are commonly accepted by most people…….that he IS, in fact, a bishop of the Anglican Communion? He IS, after all, one of the most highly-respected bishops of Christ’s One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, who happens to practice what he preaches……unlike some well-known TEC bishops whose names need not be mentioned.
#40 Well, Brian, I respectfully disagree with your analysis here. Since RW recognizes Abp Venables as in communion with Canterbury, and since Abp Venables recognizes Bp Schofield in communion with him (and part of his diocese), then I read it to recognize Bp Schofield as a Bishop of the AC.
You forget that these provinces outside of the U.S. which are recognizing the U.S. based bishops are doing it as an “emergency” measure in response to a pastoral call for “alternate primatial oversight” due to the actions of TEC, which are contrary to Scripture. Virtually ALL of the Primates accepting U.S. based parishes and dioceses into their provinces have stated it’s a “temporary” measure. They ALL stated that if TEC were to reverse its action and return to the teachings of Scripture, then ALL these parishes and dioceses, would again return to their original geographical recognition as being part of TEC.
This was an answer to a plea for alternate primatial oversight, and nothing else. NONE of it has been stated to be permanent as of YET!!! It will depend on what TEC decides to do, whether they will become “permanent” arrangements or not.
As of yet, RW has not disinvited Bp Schofield to the Lambeth Conference, as far as posters from his own diocese have stated here in this thread. Until I hear otherwise, Bp Schofield is still a Bishop in the AC, and also a Bishop of the Province of the Southern Cone, a part of the AC.
#42 Brian: NOT MUCH!
1. Brian is correct that a person can be a bishop in an Anglican Province yet still not be recognized as an “Anglican Communion bishop” by the ABC. Gene Robinson, along with the CANA and AMiA bishops, are all examples of this.
2. Brian is not correct that the ABC has rendered any decision on Schofield – at least not anything that has been made public. Unless Schofield has his Lambeth invitation revoked, the only conclusion is that Schofield remains a recognized “Anglican Communion bishop.”
3. Brian and Sarah are both correct in their own ways about Schofield’s deposition. TEC will ACT as if the deposition is valid, and all consequences of a deposition within TEC will flow as such. And that is what matters, at least as far as TEC is concerned. An analogy would be a dictator who calls an election, sees that he has lost the vote, suppresses the publication of the results, and declares that he was won the election. Did he win? No. But he can act like he won and so in that sense he did “win” the election.
4. Regarding the import of Lamb’s email. It clearly was not an official Lambeth invitation. And it is highly unlikely that Rowan will have disinvited Schofield at this time. Remember that Rowan appointed an advisory committee to consider the various invitations and what should be done about them. I would think that it would be extremely unlikely that Rowan would act until that committee made its recommendations. What’s more, if Rowan disinvited Schofield now, he would be implicitly turning his back on his ACI allies (who have been willing to host several very damning indictments of TEC’s abuse of the canons as they applied to Schofield). Does anyone really think Rowan would make such a move now? No way. The more I think of it, the more I think that Jerry Lamb was taken an email completely out of context and is misrepresenting it, either out of ignorance or to score a cheap and temporary propaganda win.
No Brian from T19 you are wrong! Bishop John-David is very much a bishop in the Anglican Communion. He is a bishop in good standing with the HoB in the Province of the Southern Cone along with all of the other bsihops in that Province which it the Province of the Southern Cone, is very much a part of the Worldwide Anglican Communion….like it or not! No one with Authority has said otherwise or that he isn’t a Bishop in the Anglican Communion.
[blockquote]Only General Convention and, at that time, the HoB have the ability to determine the meaning of the Constitution and Canons.[/blockquote]
LOLOLOLOL!!!! Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha! He!He!He! Oh my! You do have a problem with reality and illusion!
#46, Jamesw, I’m in agreement with you. At this point, Bp Schofield is still holding a valid invitation to Lambeth, as far as I’m aware. There is no knowledge made public yet of a withdrawal of his invitation by RW.
As to the email to Lamb, my gut feeling is just like yours. An email from a “manager” in the Lambeth group is NOT “official” as far as an invitation from RW. You may be right in your analysis of Lamb’s reaction to the email. In my opinion, RW truly needs to clarify this one. He needs to state only one sentence very clearly. He either did or did not invite Lamb to the Lambeth Conference.
Brian from T19,
My dear brother in Christ….I say this with much love as a fellow Christian….you are too thick for your own good! You are creating more muddy water with every post you put down on this issue. Please stop and at least recognize some reality here for the love of Him who loves you!
Jamesw, since Bishop Schofield IS a member of the House of Bishops of the Anglican Church in the Southern Cone of the Americas, he IS an Anglican Communion bishop. Nothing to the contrary has ever been stated by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
[blockquote]”… think that Jerry Lamb was taken an email
completely out of context and is misrepresenting it, either out of
ignorance or to score a cheap and temporary propaganda win.”[/blockquote]
Knowing what I know it is both! And as usual jamesw, you speak clear volumes …Thank you!
#50 Cennyydd, EXACTLY right. “Nothing to the contrary has ever been stated by the Archbishop of Canterbury.”
That’s my position on it too.
As to the other bishops mentioned by jamesw above, their status of being Bishops in the AC is truly debatable due to the events occurring in TEC, ACoC, etc. However, in the long run, there is only one person who says who’s a Bishop in His church. That is Jesus!
Amen mugsie! But, I and Cennydd and many like us here in the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin in the Province of the So. Cone, he is the Bishop and +Lamb is a pretender puppet with 815’s hand clearly up his back!
#53 ODC, you may be so right about +Lamb and 815. The whole thing regarding this whole invitation thing may be a total misunderstanding of an email by +Lamb, and jamesw says above. I just sent an email to Canterbury requesting clarification (one sentence) telling us whether +Lamb “was” invited or “not” invited. We’ll see if that clarification comes out or not. Like many here on this thread, I lost my respect for RW a while back. I truly was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt for a long time. But as things got only worse, and his consistently not making firm statements to discipline TEC and other provinces clearly acting contrary to Scripture, I lost any trust in him. The clincher for me was New Orleans when he stated publicly that the “deadline” decided on by the primates for the response from TEC, was NOT a “deadline”. I clearly read the DES Communique, and it CLEARLY stated it was a deadline. For RW to state it wasn’t was just an outright lie. I lost all respect for him after that.
It’s been so obvious how defiant TEC and ACoC have become. They sneering in the face of Christ with their bold proclamations of SSB and such. The gospel they teach is the “other gospel” we were warned about.
2 Corinthians 11:1-4
1 Oh, that you would bear with me in a little folly–and indeed you do bear with me. 2 For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. 3 But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity* that is in Christ. 4 For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted–you may well put up with it!
Like verse 3 states, they’ve been deceived by the craftiness of satan, so their minds have been corrupted from the simplicity that is Christ.
It’s supposed to be RW’s job to defend the sheep in his charge. He’s supposed to stand up and proclaim the truth as Scripture gave it to us. It’s his responsibility to send away anyone and STOP anyone who tries to teach anything contrary to the Scriptures. Instead he’s bought into their pack of lies and even been deceived by satan himself, as evidenced by his earlier writings. I still have not seen a repentance from RW for his earlier writings. So, I’m lead to believe he still believes those things. That being the case, I cannot recognize him as a true servant in the church that Christ founded. Neither can I recognize any bishop, priest, etc. who does not teach the truth gospel from the Bible as it is written.
53. Yes, and with TEC paying most Anglican Communion expenses, the ABC will LISTEN and OBEY when TEC asks that +Lamb be invited. Of course there MUST have been ‘communications’ between 815 and the ABC on this. +Schofield is indeed a bishop in good standing in the Prov of the Southern Cone; it will be interesting to see next steps!
May I kindly have a response to my inquiry at 17 from someone who has some authority on the issue?
Rowan Williams stated that the diocese is the constituent building block of the Anglican Communion. The diocese decided to come under Southern Cone.
Currently there is overlapping jurisdictions in San Joaquin. This is unusual but not unique. (Overlapping jurisdictions exist in Europe, the Philippines and Canada.)
#56, hyacinth, it is my understanding that the Lambeth Conference is the instrument of communion whereas the Archbishop of Canterbury recognizes who’s in communion with Canterbury by inviting them to the conference. If he doesn’t invite an individual, it’s my understanding that is his act of not recognizing them in communion with Canterbury.
If there’s more to it, and there most likely is, then would someone else please elaborate on what I’ve said?
I may be wrong, but I believe that in the past, the invitations have gone out to all bishops. Nowadays, however, the number of bishops has grown to the point where Canterbury has limited the invitations to currently-sitting diocesans and coadjutors only.
#57, you’re right. RW did say that to Bp Howe in Florida. Yes, the Diocese of San Joaquin decided to come under the Southern Cone. However, this is a first. There is no other history of a diocese leaving TEC to become a diocese of another province. That’s where the warp is. Nobody really knows how to handle it. There are no canons to address this (not that it would make any difference based on the recent actions of TEC in regard to canons).
It’s tricky. To me, as long as RW maintains the invitation to Bp Schofield as valid, then he’s still in communion with Canterbury.
I am disappointed with the matter-of-fact way in which this invitation appears to have been offered, allowing Lamb to flaunt it as he is doing, but I’m not sure that the ABC had any other choice but to invite him. Bp. Lamb is a bishop in good standing in a province that remains, sadly, a fully constitutive member province of the Anglican Communion. We also should acknowledge that Bp. Lamb was a bishop in good standing before he took over the rump TEC diocese that is the only TEC diocese in “all of inland Central California.” While I believe that his installment as bishop there is most certainly an uncanonical act, the ABC is not yet in a position to rule on which of the three San Joaquin entities is legitimate or the most legitimate. In addition, while +Lamb is bishop of only a tiny little spoonful of episcopalians, the ABC appropriately recognizes them by inviting Lamb.
I think it also bears repeating that the transfer of the original diocese to the Province of the Southern Cone is completely without precedent and needs to have some of the nuts and bolts worked out. I completely applaud it, but we should expect that even among the orthodox we will have some serious differences about how and when it should be formally recognized as a member diocese of Southern Cone.
I am with jamesw and cennydd regarding the status of +Schofield’s invitation. At this juncture, there is no reason to believe that he will be disinvited. Furthermore, if he remains an invitee of Lambeth and attends, he will actually set-up kind of showdown that takes his illegal deposition and the other San Joaquin issues to a forum at the highest levels of the Communion, and provides an opportunity to force action against the scorched-earth policies of the TEC hierarchy and their roots in heretical teaching.
Mugsie writes:
[blockquote]There is no other history of a diocese leaving TEC to become a diocese of another province. [/blockquote]
This is not correct. The diocese of Liberia exited ECUSA, I believe. Perhaps even more than once.
All we have is that a bureaucrat is looking forward to Jerry Lamb’s presence at Lambeth. This does not equate to an invitation. I will await official confirmation. But…
If Rowan Williams really has extended an invitation to a mere interim bishop, especially one whose nomination is so canonically clouded, it shows that he is a snake, totally in the pocket of 815. That should lay to rest any hope of a Canterbury centered communion. Rather, a Canterbury centered communion would be actually an 815 centered one.
“Rather, a Canterbury centered communion would actually be an 815 centered one.” Correct! That’s exactly what Schori and Company are aiming for!
#62 Robroy,
It’s news to me if the diocese of Liberia has previously exited ECUSA as an entire diocese. I’ve read from several sources in this past year that San Joaquin was the first entire diocese to depart TEC. It has been looked on as a test. KJS seems to even be looking at this as a first. She’s telling everyone their (815’s) events of late regarding San Joaquin are setting a “pattern” for any future dioceses that may consider leaving. She used this as a threat for any other dioceses attempting to leave.
If anyone else knows anything about this, please let us know. I can only speak for myself, and I’m not aware of any previous exit of an entire diocese from TEC.
mugsie,
It’s not that a diocese has departed from PECUSA/ECUSA/TEC, it’s HOW that departure took place that is a controversy.
With text borrowed from the website of All Souls, Okinawa, here’s just one example:
“In 1968, the “missionary” Diocese of Okinawa was formed and Edmond Lee Browning was chosen as our first Bishop. In 1972, in conjunction with the transfer of Okinawa from a U.S. possession back to Japan, the Diocese was transferred from the Episcopal Church to the Nippon Sei Ko Kai and Paul Saneaki Nakamura was elected Bishop.”
Diocese to different Province. I wonder how they handled any letters dimissory. Ask +Ed Browning, I suppose.
RGEaton
Very good point robroy! And on that note if +Lamb is invited in the true sense of an invitation then as irregualr as it is under its circumstances why not invite Bsihop Minns and those in CANA & AMiA and VGR? Why stop at an irregular and uncanonically seated bishop?
Why? Because Katharine Jefferts Schori and her handlers in The Episcopal COMMUNION would object to it! And TEC pays most of the bills.
Cennydd wins….! We are not a Canterbury Centered Communion…. as it is it appears we are an 815 TEC Centered Communion. Has +Rowan gotten the memo yet? 🙂
#65 Rob Eaton, thanks. I was not aware of any previous history of a whole diocese leaving TEC. I stand corrected. However, you are right, this definitely is the most disputed example of a diocese exiting TEC. That is definitely a first.
I also think you hit on a very important point in the latter part of your comment. That’s a good question that definitely needs to be answered. If Bishop Lamb did indeed receive an official invitation (not yet confirmed), then that definitely begs the question of why Bishops Minns, et al did not also receive official invitations. The seating of Bishop Lamb is indeed MOST irregular.
Rowan Williams, another one for you. What the heck are you going to do about this “irregular” bishop if you did indeed offer him an official invitation? Are you going to give the same courtesy to all other “irregular” bishops by inviting them to attend Lambeth? Anglicans around the world will definitely want to know.
w.w. wrote: ” ‘Note to congregations. Medical insurance through the Medical Trust will begin on 1 July 2008.’
Ah, the “ties that really bind†so many clergy to their denomination: the pension plan and, more important, group medical insurance coverage…. ”
You’re right, ww — my concern about whether my family has access to medical care is a clear indicator I’m not a committed disciple of Jesus. Thanks for clearing that up!
Look, I for one would want all people to be able to have access to medical insurance for themselves and their families. But, I think that Fr. Hall putting that tidbit on a website was unwise. That should be something that is communicated via a private letter/memo to the clergy that is applies to and sent to either to their home address or their church address but not on a Diocesan Website. That was just not smart IMHO!
It was just plain STUPID!
Hey, mugsie,
I was going to post another one when – of all things – my job distracted me. : )
Libera.
The Missionary District of Cape Palmas (etc.) was set up back in 1844 with the establishment of PECUSA congregations by missionaries. John Payne became the first (Missionary) Bishop, elected, as all Missionary Bishops were, by the House of Bishops. As a special note, in 1884 the first PECUSA, and Liberian, African American bishop, Samuel Ferguson, was elected. Robert Campbell, OHC, was elected Missionary Bishop in 1925, reflecting a major portion and commitment of the overseas work of that religious order, which held things together there for a long time. Along with other missionary districts in ECUSA at the time (such as San Joaquin), Liberia became a “full-fledged†diocese in 1970. And then in 1982, the Diocese of Liberia left ECUSA and became a full member of the Church of the Province of West Africa.
So there’s another one.
Interesting that as recent as last December, 2007, when an election for a new bishop in Liberia had been declared invalid, the relationship with TEC was still on some people’s minds. From a press release comes this quote.
‘Also commenting on the issue in a rather frustrated mood, an official of Diocesan Council (name withheld) contended that Liberia will pull out of the Province if it (Province) insists on nullifying the results of the election.
‘In another development, a laity who also begged for anonymity wondered to whether the Convention or the Canon, which comes first. He however said: “It is about time that Liberia rethinks its relationship with the Province,” noting, “We do not benefit anything from the Province, rather, it is the Province that benefits from us.”
He said it would even be better if the Episcopal Church of Liberia goes back to ECUSA (Episcopal Church of the United States of America) noting: “Although we pulled out of ECUSA, that group is still supporting our diocese.”’
RGEaton
One Day Closer and Cennydd
Following your posts throughout this thread has given me a pretty clear picture of the type of people who are in the Southern Cone San Joaquin. Thanks.
Brian from T19,
You are welcome if you are not being derogatory and if you are then all I can say is that we both support our Bishop and the clergy in our Diocese that have made a great deal of sacrifice for the True Word of God and not for man’s need of political correctness to justify sinful behavior and bless that which God calls an abomination and who can honestly say that Jesus is the only Way, Truth, and Life and no one gets to the Father except through Him. And again if you are being derogatory then that tells me alot about you and those in your diocese.
Blessings Brian
RE: “That’s all well and good for the philosophers, but it lacks pragmatism. Practical consequences and real effects determine truth and meaning.”
Stalin could not, of course, have said it better.
But let’s substitute the correct words for what you said.
“That’s all well and good for the [people who care about truth], but it lacks pragmatism. Practical consequences and real effects [are determined by power and force, not truth].”
RE: “You can, perhaps correctly, claim that an action did not occur,” . . . .
Yes indeed I can — when the action did not occur.
RE: ” . . . but the effects and consequences amply demonstrate that it did in all but name.”
Well, no. The “effects and consequences” of being shot by Stalin for “betrayal of the laws of the Mother Russia” do not demonstrate, in fact, that a person is a “traitor” to her country at all or violated any laws. Being shot by Stalin does not mean that the pronouncement of the Minister of Justice was the truth or in keeping with the law. The “effects and consequences” of being shot by Stalin merely demonstrate that Stalin has — for the moment — superior firepower.
RE: “Perhaps the salve of being “technically correct†makes the situation better for those suffering the consequence . . . ”
It is actually no salve at all. But I have a belief — truth will always come out, like a live thing, like wildfire, like water flowing downhill. One cannot — ultimately — stop it. So the task of those who care about truth is to tell it, over and over, publicly and loudly. I am satisfied — quite satisfied — that that is being done. And I believe that history — perhaps a sooner history than we might imagine — will bear out the truth-tellers, and shame the liars.
RE: “However, standing on principle is the express lane to martyrdom and not necessarily a catalyst for change.”
Not certain what that means. The violation of truth and the gross abuse of power has already brought a miscarriage of justice. Telling the truth about that fact will not bring further martyrdom — but merely the truth.
I am looking forward to it.
ODC
Actually not being derogatory-just interested in the mindset of the people who left. You both have quite a passion. I’m not actually very representative of my Diocese, nor am I representative of ++Katharine’s leadership
Earlier in the thread Brian From T19 wrote that the HoB let Schori assume “dictatorial powers”–that was the phrase, carrying I think a strong negative connotation, as if she should not be permitted such powers. Suppose Brian is right–she is operating outside the nomos/law of the provincial church, and the HoB lets it happen.
It may be most of the HoB would let her act that way because they feel the existence of the provincial church is at stake, and forbidding her such powers would carry an unacceptably hight risk of being suicidal: “The Consitution is not a suicide pact,” as one well-respected Justice once said.
The Episcopal Church has entered what political/legal theorists call a “state of exception” in which what passes as the community’s Soveriegn is in fact designated as the one permitted to step outside the Law inorder to preserve the community ordered by that Law. Any community intent on surviving must have provisions for a state of exception.
What matters is not so much that the community periodically enters into a state of excpetion–only a naive Polyanna would doubt such necessity, particularly in our fallen condition. What matters is merely that the state of exception not become normal and permanent.
Well, thank God for THAT! But, just a reminder: One Day Closer speaks for a LOT of us……me included!
Well thank you for that Brian! We are on fire for the Lord here in the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin. 🙂
Anglican Scotist: Fascinating comment. On the one hand we are told by the PB that there is a mere handful of malcontents leaving – barely a ripple. On the other hand, we are told that the situation is so dire that a form of “martial law” must be declared and the PB must be granted tyrannical powers to step outside the law in order to save the institution (the Church must be destroyed in order to save the Church!?!?!).
Do you know what Anglican Scotist? It doesn’t pass the smell test. Either a major crisis confronts TEC, and imposing martial law is a wholly inadequate and unchristian solution while the Tryant rejects negotiation, OR TEC faces a relatively small number of parishes and people leaving, and imposing martial law is tremendous overkill.
jamesw,
You would be absolutely right to see a contradiction, were it not for the fact that a few well-organized, well-funded and determined people can in fact undermine an institution. Even supposing our PB has her numbers right and tehre are only a few Separatists, it might well be that it only takes a few to throw the existence of the province into question.
How can that be, you ask? The right wing is a Minority in TEC–no news flash there–but the right is a definite Majority in the Anglican Communion. The Minorit yin TEC allying with teh Majority in the AC can have Power to disrupt TEC that it would otherwise not have.
So, how does that smell to you?
As to the other point: Would it destroy the Church if the PB operated outside her own canons? Did Lincoln’s suspension of Habeas Corpus in ’61 destroy the Constitution-or undermine the Union? How about the extraordinary use of Executive Power in the Emancipation Proclamation? If it’s good enuff for Lincoln, well by golly it’s good enuff for Schori. Enuff said.
“…operated outside her own canons?”
Anglican Scotist, for someone who is generally considered to be even-handed and circumspect (albeit almost always in defense of whatever the progressivists are doing), your comments above are laughable. Firstly, the design of the office of Presiding Bishop was intended to prevent an ecclesiastical sovereignty of any sort, and provides for only very limited executive authority. Secondly, are you suggesting that you support and have supported the Bush Administration and the Homeland Security Act since the United States “has entered what political/legal theorists call a “state of exception†in which what passes as the community’s Soveriegn is in fact designated as the one permitted to step outside the Law inorder to preserve the community ordered by that Law. Any community intent on surviving must have provisions for a state of exception…”?
I daresay that your ire has probably been raised to the extreme anytime a Bush Administration official has suggested that, due to the clear and present threat posed to us by the terrorist networks of Islamic extremists, an illegal action was in reality legal because it was justified to preserve our national community.
However, I would agree that it is only a very small step from Duns Scotus to Machiavelli, and another small step from Machiavelli to the wartime administration of the great liberal, Woodrow Wilson.
continued from #84 above (please insert at the end of the last sentence of the last paragraph) –
…Woodrow Wilson, who appears to fulfill your glorious vision of benevolent dictatorship in a crisis, and makes Abraham Lincoln look like the boy officers in the film [i] Taps[/i].
young joe,
You appear to know more than you are letting on.
Anyhow, I agree wholly that the canons closely circumscribe the PB’s normal range of action. No doubt. But that is one thing; what a PB is permitted in extraordinary circumstances is another thing. To be brief: that a PB be permitted to operate in a state of exception to the canons is perfectly consitent with her power being circumscribed by the canons. It is paradoxical, at least, to require exceptions to the canons be written into the canons.
The Bush administration is busy normalizing the state of exception, making extraordinary powers the norm. That goes beyond Lincoln, even Wilson, and–dare I say–Schori. That an executive can operate in the state of exception: that’s not exceptional. For such Powers to become normal is anotgher thing entirely, a problem of another order.